Was there ever any evidence of criminality against the McCanns?

[icabodcrane]

Grasping at straws comes to mind.   

Do you disagree that Martin Smith's evidence would be admissible in a court of law as evidence against the McCanns ?

Admissible yes but without corroboration pretty benign.

There we have it then

... evidence against the McCanns that a court would be compelled to hear and consider

It's no myth

Compelled?  You could be right about that.  And then compelled to hear what the rest of The Smith Family had to say.

The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.

Do you seriously believe that the evidence of Martin Smith was of any use?

And, Dear God, I shudder to think of what The Defence would have done to Mrs. Smith, presuming that she could have been forced to give evidence.

This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable,  it was started in order to dismiss as  'myth'  that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all

I don't think  Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns  is reliable,  and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court

That is not the same thing, though, as claiming  Mr Smith does not present  evidence against the McCanns ... because he does

That fact disproves the premise of this thread

[John]

The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.

Agreed!

But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...

Yes, she would have been torn to shreds in the end.

[Angelo222]

This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable,  it was started in order to dismiss as  'myth'  that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all

I don't think  Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns  is reliable,  and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court

That is not the same thing, though, as claiming  Mr Smith does not present  evidence against the McCanns ... because he does

That fact disproves the premise of this thread

Wrong Ica.  I started the thread to explore any evidence which can show criminality against the McCanns.  Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child.  Anything further is pure speculation.

Why do you labor this issue so when you are so obviously wrong??

[icabodcrane]

This thread was not started in order to discuss whether the evidence against the McCanns is reliable,  it was started in order to dismiss as  'myth'  that any evidence against the McCanns exists at all

I don't think  Mr Smith's evidence against the McCanns  is reliable,  and believe it could be comfortably discredited in court

That is not the same thing, though, as claiming  Mr Smith does not present  evidence against the McCanns ... because he does

That fact disproves the premise of this thread

Wrong Ica.  I started the thread to explore any evidence which can show criminality against the McCanns.  Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child.  Anything further is pure speculation.

Why do you labor this issue so when you are so obviously wrong??

Because I like debating here,  and am in admiration of a forum that still allows open discussion of this case

I labor this point, particulaly, because I do not want the forum to discredit itself by proclaiming something  a  'myth'  when it clearly is not

[Eleanor]

Sorry, could I just say that Debunker is not necessarily wrong.  Just frightfully boring at times, because he persists with semantics.  But he doesn't half get some people going when it comes to The Law.  Which is what it is actually all about.

He would be your best friend if someone was trying to stitch up any of you.

And, Yes, I do believe that Goncalo Amaral did try to stitch up The McCanns, mainly because he was already in serious trouble over The Cipriano Affair.  But that is only my belief.  And we have still not seen the end of that.

Goncalo Amaral is a very stupid and ignorant man who has no real understanding of science or DNA.  And Yes, I do have this understanding.  But then it isn't all that difficult.

Semantics?  Don't take me on.  I could make minced meat out of all of the Anti McCanns. I just don't choose to.  Debunker does that for me.
Et mercis beaucoup, mon cher.  You are so much better at it than I am.  And never doubt that I do understand.

[AnneGuedes]

Mr Smith and his family saw a man carrying a child.  Anything further is pure speculation.

I don't think so. They didn't see a child, but a little girl whom three of them described precisely. I agree that the feeling of Mr Smith has no identification value, but it gives an indication about the carrier's gait. Curiously this wasn't exploited nor was corrected Bundleman (Cooperman) with the agreement of Jane of course.

[AnneGuedes]

Ecoute mois.

What does this mean in English, please ?

[Eleanor]

The Smith Family, collectively, were of no use whatsoever in a Criminal Prosecution.

Agreed!

But Aofe Smith (in particular) might have been more than useful as a defence witness ...

I don't know, Our Kid.  It never got there.  And The Defence would have decimated Martin Smith.  Poor soul, who I do believe had a crisis of conscience, probably for the best of reasons.  But it was never going to wash.  Even I could could destroyed what he appears to have thought.  Simply by the carrying of a child, which all of us have done at some time.

And Yes, I could also explain what Jane Tanner says she saw of the carrying of the child.  It is all so simple to me.

But my opinions are always my own.  None of us actually known.

[John]

Ecoute mois.

What does this mean in English, please ?

I assume it should be ecoute moi?

[AnneGuedes]

Ah écoutez-moi !

[Eleanor]

Ecoute mois.

What does this mean in English, please ?

Presumably you have no French.  It means, "Hear Me", or "Listen to me".  It is of no great importance.  Unless you don't, of course.

[Eleanor]

Ah écoutez-moi !

Only if you are talking to the non familiar.  Vous, as it were.

[AnneGuedes]

I don't know, Our Kid.  It never got there.  And The Defence would have decimated Martin Smith.  Poor soul, who I do believe had a crisis of conscience, probably for the best of reasons.  But it was never going to wash.  Even I could could destroyed what he appears to have thought.  Simply by the carrying of a child, which all of us have done at some time.

And Yes, I could also explain what Jane Tanner says she saw of the carrying of the child.  It is all so simple to me.

But my opinions are always my own.  None of us actually known.

You could and you could imagine half a dozen reasons "for the time lapse".. and "for why The Abductor might have chosen the route". Why do you keep it for yourself ? Is it we don't deserve it ?

[AnneGuedes]

Ah écoutez-moi !

Only if you are talking to the non familiar.  Vous, as it were.

Thanks for the French lesson, Eleanor !

[Redblossom]

I don't know why people are of the view that the person Jane Tanner alledgedly saw at 9.15 or so is the same person the Smith group saw at 10.00 or so. The descriptions of him are not identical, they differ in a couple of respects, in appearance, hair and face,  and in where they were going. Not to mention one of the Smiths said the child had a long sleeved pyjama top on and trousers and Kate says Madeleine was wearing short sleeved pyjama top that night and that Jane had seen bare arms, not that I read that anywhere in Jane Tanners statements, was that a Kate porkie? and the bottoms were shorts.